COVID-19: CMS Issues Telehealth Guidance for State Medicaid and CHIP Programs

28 April 2020 Blog
Authors: Olivia R. King Kyle Y. Faget
Published To: Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business Health Care Law Today

On April 23, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the “State Medicaid & CHIP Telehealth Toolkit: Policy Considerations for States Expanding Use of Telehealth” (the Toolkit). Telehealth allows patients to receive necessary health care services without risking the spread of COVID-19 through in-person interactions. The Toolkit is one of several guidance documents CMS has issued to expand use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed previously, CMS has expanded coverage of telehealth services for all Medicare beneficiaries, allowing practitioners to treat patients (whether new or established) via telehealth, and allowing telephone only services in various circumstances. 

However, because federal and state governments dually fund Medicaid as a state-administered program, and each state designs its own program (subject to CMS approval for federal funding), it is not practical for CMS to issue sweeping waivers on telehealth services applicable to all states. Medicaid covers 71 million Americans, including 35 million children, and Medicaid may become an even more important safety net due to the economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the Toolkit aims to help states expand Medicaid telehealth coverage by identifying existing state policies that may impede the use of telehealth. Below we summarize some key points from the Toolkit, but refer interested parties to review the Toolkit in full.  

The Toolkit describes telehealth as a “mix of four interrelated domains” and provides questions that states should consider for each domain in order to minimize barriers to telehealth utilization. The four domains include: 


The population to whom service is being delivered. States may have policies in place that limit telehealth coverage to certain populations like residents of rural areas, for instance. States have the flexibility to cover telehealth services across patient populations. The Toolkit directs states to consider the following questions, among others, when assessing policies that restrict the population who have access to telehealth:

  • Are there limitations on the populations who may receive services via telehealth?
  • Can practitioners establish a new provider-patient relationship via telehealth?

Services & Reimbursement

The service that is being delivered, including coverage and reimbursement. Historically, a number of states have covered only a limited number of services when provided via telehealth, including behavioral health services, for instance. Moreover, an American Telemedicine Association report found that only twenty-eight states have adopted Medicaid payment parity between telehealth and in-person services. States lacking payment parity laws may unduly restrict the ability for telehealth to facilitate increased access to care. States should consider the following:

  • Are there differences in the ability to bill Medicaid/CHIP for telehealth services by provider or telehealth modality?
  • Are there additional documentation requirements for telehealth services? Are these requirements necessary? Do these requirements decrease telehealth utilization?
  • How does telehealth affect Medicaid services addressing social determinants of health?


The practitioner delivering the service. State scope of practice laws may limit which practitioners can deliver services via telehealth. For instance, states may authorize some practitioners including obstetricians, gynecologists, dentists, and physical and occupational therapists to bill Medicaid, but state scope of practice laws may prohibit these practitioners from providing services via telehealth. States should consider the following:

  • Are there restrictions as to which practitioners are eligible to bill for telehealth services and do these restrictions differ by telehealth modality?
  • What training must a practitioner have in order to practice via telehealth? Is re-training required at specific time intervals? Do training requirements differ by practitioner specialty or telehealth modality?
  • Are payment rates adequate to cover the additional expenses associated with telehealth?


The technology used to deliver the service. Practitioners may deliver telehealth via various means, and states often regulate provision of telehealth services by requiring a specific modality. For instance, two-way audio/visual communication, store and forward, and remote patient monitoring are three possible modalities. However, CMS and many private payors have relaxed or waived telehealth modality requirements in an effort to increase access to telehealth services. For instance, some payer policies allow the use of audio-only communication in limited circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic. States should consider the following when analyzing expansion of telehealth coverage: 

  • Do states have privacy laws that exceed the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)? 
  • Do state laws regulate the distant and originating site for telehealth services? Do these laws limit the functionality of telehealth?

The Toolkit also discusses provision of telehealth services to pediatric patients. For instance, state policies, including consent and privacy laws may impede access to telehealth for pediatric patients. State consent laws may require parental consent for children utilizing telehealth services, or new consent and re-consent in some situations. Moreover, states should consider whether credentialing and licensure requirements for pediatric practitioners present a barrier to telehealth utilization.

Finally, the Toolkit answers frequently asked questions (FAQs) in the area of Medicaid/CHIP benefit, financing, workforce, managed care and health information exchange flexibilities. Largely, these FAQs highlight guidance previously issued by CMS or flexibilities established by existing federal statutes and regulations. 

The State Medicaid & CHIP Telehealth Toolkit represents CMS’s continuing effort to ensure access to necessary health care services despite disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By considering the questions posed in the Toolkit, states may identify the regulatory and policy barriers that restrict telehealth utilization and take action to limit these barriers and, in turn, increase access care. 

For more information, please contact your Foley relationship partner or the Foley colleagues listed below. For additional web-based resources available to assist you in monitoring the spread of the coronavirus on a global basis, you may wish to visit the websites of the CDC and the World Health Organization

Foley has created a multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional team to respond to COVID 19, which has prepared a wealth of topical client resources and is prepared to help our clients meet the legal and business challenges that the coronavirus outbreak is creating for stakeholders across a range of industries. Click here for Foley’s Coronavirus Resource Center to stay apprised of relevant developments, insights and resources to support your business during this challenging time. To receive this content directly in your inbox, click here and submit the form. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services